According to the New Statesman the plans to attack Iran are not only complete but are the result of a deliberate policy that was instituted immediately after the Iraq invasion.

Quote:

British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.

If, as seems highly likely, this is true then it raises even more questions about how Bush has prosecuted the Iraq war and his culpability for the ongoing chaos and the loss of US lives; there was no focus on Iraq at all.

Quote:

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).

It seems likely that this is Bush's Iraq solution: gamble on defeating Iran, installing 'freedom' and thus solving the Iraq problem by:

a) shifting Iraq to an irrelevant side issue in the light of a far more serious major war (which in this view he believes the US will win),

b) creating a 'greater Iraq' - ie Iran and Iraq - with the US in successful occupation of the Iran part

c) having completed this then relegating the Iraq problem to an ongoing issue that can be dealt with over time from a position of power as the US occupy Iran and have Iraq in a pincer-movement.

The problem with this plan is that the US cannot pacify the Iraqi insurgents - although this may be, as the article suggests, due to a deliberate switch of focus - the US dead and Iraqi debacle may well be seen by Bush as a strategic sacrifice of minor expendable pawns.

The plan seems to be for a lightening strike:

Quote:

Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines, who are not tied down fighting in Iraq. Several marine forces are assembling, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and, yes, hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations.

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.

The whole of Iran is now less than an hour's flying time from some American base or carrier. Sources in the region as well as trade journals confirm that the US has built three bases in Azerbaijan that could be transit points for troops and with facilities equal to its best in Europe.
Most of the Iranian army is positioned along the border with Iraq, facing US army missiles that can reach 150km over the border. But it is in the flat, sandy oilfields east and south of Basra where the temptation will be to launch a tank attack and hope that a disaffected population will be grateful.

This is not possible - it is possible to have grateful populations who have been liberated from oppression but Bush does not seem to have this knack.

Possibly it is to do with the chosen methods and stunning hypocrisy and lies that are re-branded as 'freedom':

Quote:

Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies.

Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran.

First mistake right there - repeating exactly the Iraq core mistake: to fall into the trap of believing that the propaganda that is so effective on the sheep at home (because it is designed for them) will also work on people in the region being lied about who can see a different truth.

The sheep and wingers of course will never believe the US is funding terror groups on the ground. The people of Iran can see for themselves that they are; very stupid to let them catch you in a lie - makes them think (rightly) that the US can't be trusted.

There is another article in the magazine which is quite interesting by Rageh Omar - not the most objective of reporters and something of a stooge but still, he has this to say:

Quote:

Most foreign news coverage of Iran has focused on political and military developments. But delve deeper into society, and it is not hard to find myriad vivid snapshots of life.

These give the lie to the stereotype of the dark, forbidding and hostile society. Consider: more plastic surgery operations are carried out in Tehran than in Los Angeles, and drug addiction is openly recognised (a taboo in other Middle Eastern Muslim countries). There are two million heroin addicts in Iran and a large number of independent drug rehab charities helping them. There is a similar story with HIV. Iran has one of the largest non-governmental networks of charities and aid agencies in the Middle East, working beyond state control on anything from child labour to girls' education.

As he goes on to say, all this will be wiped out in a moment by Bush...infrastructure, people, organizations - all dead. Crushed beneath the relentless automaton that is US 'freedom' - the uncaring and unknowing juggernaut of 'democracy' that is primed to kill and destroy all that does not measure up to the sick and evil blueprint it demands the world accept is 'good, moral and free'.

It is sad that in Iran - just like in Iraq before - there are desperate and naive people who really do long for freedom; real freedom.

These simple souls even believe that the US believes in this freedom too. Of course they believe this because they have no knowledge (yet) of Western duplicity and even the atrocities in Iraq are too hideous for these simple men to contemplate.

It happened in Iraq too - Omar quotes a heart-rending case:

Quote:

The night before the 2003 invasion of Iraq started, an American colleague was pulled aside by an Iraqi who wanted the US and UK to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. Even though the war to overthrow Saddam was only hours away, the man was still frightened to speak openly, so he communicated in code. He pointed excitedly at his watch and asked my American colleague, "What time America?"

What the man meant was: when was America going to begin its attack, and couldn't it hurry up.

Like an excited schoolboy this poor man had convinced himself he was hours away from what he had dreamt of forever; freedom. he had allowed himself to believe that the US were going to make it happen.

He is probably dead now.

Maybe in the shock and awe, maybe a bunker-buster or just another faceless victim of the chaos the US have engendered as they turned their backs on Iraq in search of new lands to plunder and rape.

Maybe there are still some desperate people now in Iran asking the same "what time America?"

What time to I die? What time does my culture disappear for ever?

Me, I am asking the same: what time does the evil stop? And who can stop it?

Maybe, just maybe, it will stop soon. The Iraqis could not stop the evil, could not stop the juggernaut. Now it is the Iranians turn to have a go.

For all the other countries on the list - and all the people at home who dissent and will very soon be on a quite different list - it's time to ask the question: what time freedom lovers?

When do we start to stop the madmen?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Omar's "Islamic History of Europe" was quite a lot better - but he is a straight in my view and although quite a sweetie in is own way, has been a tad too steeped in the propaganda.

Maybe it's just because he works for the BBC.

Iran has the hottest babes on the planet though no?

What’s the deal with you and BBC?

In States, there are no normal news channels. Locals actually think that they are watching news … But if you show (US version) of CNN “news” to someone from Europe, they’ll be like: WTF, where are the news?

Local channels are showing neighborhood stuff, and some second-hand puke of one-two international events. “News” channels (CNN, etc.) are showing watered down and politically corrected BS to promote Big Brother.

(FOX is an official Dr. Goebbels’ channel, so it’s not on my dial.)

I am normally getting first chunk of news from BBC on NPR, in the mornings while driving to work. Then from Internet @ night. BTW, I don’t know much about Omar, but the film is good.

In States, there are no normal news channels. Locals actually think that they are watching news But if you show (US version) of CNN news to someone from Europe, theyll be like: WTF, where are the news?

Local channels are showing neighborhood stuff, and some second-hand puke of one-two international events. News channels (CNN, etc.) are showing watered down and politically corrected BS to promote Big Brother.

(FOX is an official Dr. Goebbels channel, so its not on my dial.)

I am normally getting first chunk of news from BBC on PBS, in the mornings while driving to work. Then from Internet @ night. BTW, I dont know much about Omar, but the film is good.

Well, some of the BBC output is good but they are too 'even-handed' for my taste. Every view has to be countered with an opposing view for balance (unless the subject is Israel) - this is good I suppose but I would much prefer more of a zero-tolerance approach.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

I do not have any doubt that a plan about invading iran is already existing, because it's the goal of the military headquarters to create them, but I higly doubt that there will be an invasion.

One disaster at a time is enough, even for USA.

On a side note, it's almost sure, that Bin laden is dead now, but I am ready to bet, that there won't be any news of his death, or his capture (if he is still alive) for the next decade.
It's very important for US to have military bases in Afghanistan right now.

Two years ago french soldiers have reported that they have seen Bin laden, and phone to the US military leaders for more instructions : they never recieved it any.
Some months ago, some saudi secret agents reported the death of Bin laden. Officialy it was denied.

Maybe the Iranians think he was wrong also, and they are only preparing for war in order to prevent war?

Oh, and I think most of us liberal treehuggers around here would support war against Iran when they, let's say, bomb Isreal. Here's a good question: what have the Iranians done that Saoudi Arabia didn't already do?

It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not

I heard from a friend in Iran yesterday. He says that people had not taken this threat seriously but now they are starting to.

It got me thinking - imagine you were in a country that was just waiting and wondering; will we be bombed? Will I get killed if I go out to the shop?

With this hanging over your head is it not a form of terrorism? Is not the fear the same as if a Londoner or New Yorker is living in fear of al Qaeda? Is not anyone who issues such threats against populations a terrorist by definition? Whether it is Osama or Bush?

A bomb is a bomb is a bomb and when you're dead you're dead. The very threat of it hanging over you is terrorism in my view.

Or is carpet bombing and DU shelling somehow more 'moral'? Or maybe it is the nature of the people - maybe some people who are bombed are somehow worth less?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

I heard from a friend in Iran yesterday. He says that people had not taken this threat seriously but now they are starting to.

It got me thinking - imagine you were in a country that was just waiting and wondering; will we be bombed? Will I get killed if I go out to the shop?

With this hanging over your head is it not a form of terrorism? Is not the fear the same as if a Londoner or New Yorker is living in fear of al Qaeda? Is not anyone who issues such threats against populations a terrorist by definition? Whether it is Osama or Bush?

A bomb is a bomb is a bomb and when you're dead you're dead. The very threat of it hanging over you is terrorism in my view.

Or is carpet bombing and DU shelling somehow more 'moral'? Or maybe it is the nature of the people - maybe some people who are bombed are somehow worth less?

I watched BBC's Rageh Inside Iran last night. The majority of Iranians are good people. The women have made big strides in business, education and even the arts (though there is censorship, their form of it is explained very well in the documentary). They have malls very similar to ours. They like American culture very much too. I guess this is because the population is so young. Everyone should watch this. As I did, certain scenes made me sad that our government can not diplomatically enter Iran and just talk and listen to them. \

I watched BBC's Rageh Inside Iran last night. The majority of Iranians are good people. The women have made big strides in business, education and even the arts (though there is censorship, their form of it is explained very well in the documentary). They have malls very similar to ours. They like American culture very much too. I guess this is because the population is so young. Everyone should watch this. As I did, certain scenes made me sad that our government can not diplomatically enter Iran and just talk and listen to them. \

Yes. I think it is one of the greatest tragedies of the last hundred years (as well as one of the greatest dangers) that the current US admin can only see 'Diplomacy at Gunpoint'.

They have missed so many golden opportunities. So many.

It is purely the Bush administration's fault that Ahmedinejad is in power imho. Khatemi and other moderates would have walked it were it not for Bush's neanderthal swaggering and crowing.

We just need to get through the next few years intact, remove Bush and Blair (preferably placing them firmly behind bars) and make sure that no-one inherits the mantle who wants to carry on the agenda.

Then, with the right leadership, the US can start to heal itself, take its rightful place on the world stage and start to win back the trust of countries like Iran.

We need a real leader to step up to the plate - unfortunately there doesn't seem to be one on the horizon (sadly not Obama as I had once hoped - now he reveals himself as just another 'Israel Firster').

Difficult to see who can step up to the plate but miracles happen.....

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

SDW, would you prefer any other option then military action under any circumstance?

Do you acknowledge, ever, any issues of morality, of any kind at all, with American foreign policy toward the Middle East over the last 50 years?

Of course I would prefer another option as I have stated several times. Don't attempt to pervert my position for the sake of argument. I would like to avoid a war with Iran (or even airstrikes) at all costs. I'm simply saying that in the end there may be no other option. I think Iran having a nuclear weapon is completely unacceptable to the national security interests of the United States.

I suppose that second question is a way of asking "SDW, How much do you blame America for the Middle East?" The answer is: Not much. What specific policies do you view as the problem, other than 2003 Iraq War?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Totally disagree. You can and must be prepared for war in the sense that your military must be at readiness. You can't prepare for a war during the war, after its started. Secondly, the cartoon ignores a simple concept...Peace Through Strength. As Reagan once said, "of all the wars I've seen my lifetime, not a single one began because the United States was too strong." Or, take the Teedy Roosevelt motto: "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

Are these ideas you disagree with?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Wow, SDW. Considering the frequency with which you misunderstand what you read and then argue with your own imagination, it's no wonder you've been wrong time and time again when it comes to international politics and war. One would think that by now you'd recognize that your interpretation is frequently flawed and, rather than jumping to conclusions, you'd stop, take a deep breath, read the sentence again and, if it's still too ambiguous, ask for clarification.

As for the separate issue of "peace through strength," you don't need to point a gun at someone's head to project strength.

I suppose that second question is a way of asking "SDW, How much do you blame America for the Middle East?" The answer is: Not much. What specific policies do you view as the problem, other than 2003 Iraq War?

Let me answer that question with a question.

Do you attribute any of the current issues in Iran to the CIA-backed toppling of its democratically elected government in 1953?

Wow, SDW. Considering the frequency with which you misunderstand what you read and then argue with your own imagination, it's no wonder you've been wrong time and time again when it comes to international politics and war. One would think that by now you'd recognize that your interpretation is frequently flawed and, rather than jumping to conclusions, you'd stop, take a deep breath, read the sentence again and, if it's still too ambiguous, ask for clarification.

As for the issue of "peace through strength," you don't need to point a gun at someone's head to project strength.

I understand the context it was presented in, giant. I'm merely taking issue with the statement itself. As a matter of generality, it's false. With regard to threatening a specific nation with force, it might be accurate. I get it...stupid as I am.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Do you attribute any of the current issues in Iran to the CIA-backed toppling of its democratically elected government in 1953?

Probably not. That was 54 years ago, and we certainly can't be blamed for everything that has transpired since then. I could easily ask the same thing about our lack of full support for the government in 1979. Maybe if Carter had acted, we wouldn't be where we are today. See...it works both ways.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

What statement? My statement that you replied to and supposedly "disagree" with? My original casual observation, which was about the imagery, is only tangentially related to what you are talking about and, if anything, the cartoon downplays the disparity between the two countries. Please don't just jump to conclusions and start arguing. That's a habit worth breaking.

Also, there is a severely flawed assumption that underlies the rhetoric promoting war with Iran: that the Iranians want to start a war. They don't.

Probably not. That was 54 years ago, and we certainly can't be blamed for everything that has transpired since then. I could easily ask the same thing about our lack of full support for the government in 1979. Maybe if Carter had acted, we wouldn't be where we are today. See...it works both ways.

The point is that the UK and US have been fucking with the Middle East constantly during this period. Even right now. Especially right now.

And even when they overthrow democratically elected governments (as in Chile) you still believe that bullshit about freemanmocracy.

You believe that Iran is a massive threat to the world and that violence is likely to be a sad but necessary tool in its resolution that will actually make you *safer*. You totally miss the fact that the exact same manipulations that had you frothing at the mouth about the sad but necessary need to attack Iraq are being used on you right now. You totally won't hear the voices that point out that one bomb on Iran -- even the basic foreign policy of long-term fuckery actually -- will ultimately be catastrophic.

Probably not. That was 54 years ago, and we certainly can't be blamed for everything that has transpired since then. I could easily ask the same thing about our lack of full support for the government in 1979. Maybe if Carter had acted, we wouldn't be where we are today. See...it works both ways.

Dude, one of the reasons the Iranians took the Embassy hostage was because of the 1953 coup! Also, the Middle East in particular have held grudges with each other for thousands of years. Including the USA...and don't forget England and France.

What statement? My statement that you replied to and supposedly "disagree" with? My original casual observation, which was about the imagery, is only tangentially related to what you are talking about and, if anything, the cartoon downplays the disparity between the two countries. Please don't just jump to conclusions and start arguing. That's a habit worth breaking.

Also, there is a severely flawed assumption that underlies the rhetoric promoting war with Iran: that the Iranians want to start a war. They don't.

I was addressing the statement in the cartoon. What is the problem?
Secondly, that last statement is itself an assumption. There are some factions of Iran's government that absolutely DO want a war. There are others that are possibly willing to risk a war by pursuing nuclear weapon. In fact, it's not just the one assumption you're making...it's another. You're assuming that war with Iran will be the fault of US and western powers. In fact, just the opposite is true. It's up to Iran. If they demonstrate that they are willing to pursue nuclear weapons despite the threat of military action (and we don't know that they will, but regardless), then it will Iran making the choice.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You believe that Iran is a massive threat to the world and that violence is likely to be a sad but necessary tool in its resolution that will actually make you *safer*. You totally miss the fact that the exact same manipulations that had you frothing at the mouth about the sad but necessary need to attack Iraq are being used on you right now. You totally won't hear the voices that point out that one bomb on Iran -- even the basic foreign policy of long-term fuckery actually -- will ultimately be catastrophic.

Right Harald. It's all the wool being pulled over my eyes. If only I could see and think like you! If only I had clear-headed perception and powers of understanding!

Of course, this is nothing more than the standard mode of leftist argument. It's not enough to take a position...oh no. It's that anyone who would even CONSIDER supporting what you all-knowingly oppose, well that person is part of the herd of sheep. As for this specific situation..well that's a prime example. It just couldn't be that Iran is defying the international community, or that they really are working against us in Iraq, or that they are very likely developing a nuclear weapon while hosting and inciting extremely anti-semetic views. No no...it's that pesky Secret-Agenda Wielding, Warmongering Empire Building Bush Administration again! Here we go again!. It's the March to War played on that Wa Drums that President Warmonger is playing!

War War War!
We Wanta War!
War War War!
Thumpity Thumpity Thump!

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I don't foresee war in Iran but if there is it should be fast and definitive. When killing hornets one should always take out the entire nest with one hit. Never try to pick and choose which you want to kill or you will get stung. Any action against Iran should follow this model.